As prepared for delivery...

Remarks by Ambassador Michael Klosson

Limassol Lions Club

December 2, 2003

I am pleased to be with you tonight.  The service that Lions Clubs perform worldwide is well known.  I saw it first-hand at the Ioannnu Foundation annual international bazaar in October where both your organization and the Embassy were raising funds for the less fortunate.  The contribution of Lions Clubs was also made clear at your recent Europa Forum, which I attended.  Among your many generous programs, I particularly admire those that help the hearing and visually impaired.  I recall the images of impoverished young people being able to see clearly enough to read after receiving a pair of glasses provided by Lions International.  I salute your work.

As the American ambassador to Cyprus, I spend much of my time talking about the Cyprus problem and our support for the UN Good Offices Mission.  That is a top priority for me.  Tonight, however, I propose to do something different and discuss broad tenets of U.S. foreign policy.  That’s important for two reasons. 

Cyprus’s New Role and Responsibilities

     First, by joining the European Union, Cyprus joins not only Europe, but also the transatlantic partnership.  Cyprus has stepped on to a broad, new playing field, and acquired new responsibilities as well as new opportunities.  It has become more important both to Europe and the United States.  Just as Cyprus is receiving more attention from the United States and Europe on a broader range of issues, we too expect more engagement by Cyprus on those same issues.  It’s from this vantage point that we welcomed Cyprus’s helpful pledge of assistance to Iraq at the recent donors conference in Madrid, a reflection of its recognition of these new responsibilities.  In short, we need a better understanding of each other’s views so we can strengthen our cooperation on the many interests we have in common. 

     Second, there is a lot of misunderstanding -- let me say even caricatures -- of U.S. policy and the transatlantic relationship in the media.  So I welcome opportunities such as this to hear your views and put American policies into perspective.

Opportunities and Challenges

In my years as a diplomat, there has not been a more promising and yet critical era.  I met recently with the newest group of diplomats hired by your Foreign Ministry and made the same point.  This is a time of great hope:  there are more free countries in the world than at any time in history.  Technology is revolutionizing our lives and markets.  Globalization is connecting us in a thick web of networks, but it also means that developments halfway around the world -- whether good or bad -- can affect our own backyard. 

At the same time, despite the end of the Cold War, we face new dangers and challenges:  recent attacks in Istanbul remind us we are in a deadly global war against terrorism.  The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction puts international stability at risk.  Half of the world lives on less than CYP 1 per day.  HIV/AIDS has infected 40 million people worldwide, claiming 3 million lives this year alone.   Although Cyprus is an island, its security and prosperity are as much shaped by these hopes and dangers as are the security and prosperity of America and the rest of Europe.

This evening I want to discuss America’s brand of internationalism, by laying out our foreign policy goals, and by discussing some initiatives that have not received much coverage here in Cyprus but nevertheless are key to regional stability. And to avoid disappointing anyone, I will also talk about the United States’ hopes for a Cyprus solution.

The Agenda

American internationalism can be defined succinctly.  The fundamental goals of America abroad are security, freedom and prosperity.  While prepared to act alone if necessary, we believe the best way to advance these goals is through partnerships.  None is more important than, nor so solidly based on common values as, our partnership with the European Union.

America is a nation of nations-- a melting pot of cultures, religions, languages and traditions. And that diversity shapes our attitude on foreign affairs. Obviously, with such varied backgrounds, Americans do not always see eye to eye.  I am convinced, however, that American internationalism succeeds not only because it is based on core values carried in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans, but also because these same values are common aspirations the world over.  Security and peace, freedom, and prosperity resonate throughout the world. 

American policy is about much more than protecting the well being of just Americans and our allies. We who live in peaceful and affluent societies have the responsibility, the duty, to bring the rest of the world’s people closer to the freedoms and liberties they desire, a system of government of their choosing and the economic benefits globalization has to offer.   And it is important to say that the U.S. is committed to helping countries realize their potential based on their own culture, religions, languages and traditions.

Peace and Security

Naturally peace and security are our first, overriding priority.  In past decades, it was the ambitions and military might of great powers that put world peace at risk.  Consider how different circumstances are today.  We have improved our relations with all the world’s major powers simultaneously and deepened the structure of peace in the post-Cold War system.  The U.S., Russia, China, Europe, Japan and India all have constructive relations.   That’s a remarkable accomplishment and it secures peace against the rivalries and struggles that wreaked so much destruction in the past.

Unfortunately, terrorism and the proliferation weapons of mass destruction have supplanted great power rivalry as the major threat to our freedom and prosperity.   We are in a global war against terrorism, fighting networks of terrorists operating in more than 60 countries.  Fortunately, we are also making steady progress, even though the struggle is far from over. The United States is working with a broad international coalition, including Cyprus, that is advancing on many fronts, including detention of 3,400 terrorist suspects or their supporters and freezing $200 million in terrorist accounts.  Two years after September 11, it’s clear that al Qaida’s sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone and the international community is answering the call.

Iraq is the most recent front of this war on terrorism.  We could not ignore Saddam Hussein’s defiance of seventeen UN Security Council resolutions over 12 years, the threat Iraq posed to the international community and the horrors that regime inflicted at home. The United States did not go it alone; we acted in concert with a coalition of other nations.   Today there are 32 nations contributing to the effort to stabilize Iraq.  Over 70 nations have pledged $33 billion to Iraq’s reconstruction.  The international community, divided over going to war six months ago, has come together around 3 UN Security Council resolutions to build the peace.  

Although our work is far from finished, significant progress is being made all across Iraq as freedom and democracy take root in what used to be the killing fields of a dictator.  The Coalition Provisional Authority is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to establish a new political structure so Iraqis can resume sovereignty over their own affairs within seven months, and then write a new constitution and hold democratic elections for a permanent government by the end of 2005.   Beneath the alarmist headlines, democratic town councils are being formed. Vital infrastructure, such as electrical and communications systems, schools and hospitals, has been brought back to and in some instances now exceed pre-war levels.  Iraqis are taking on added security responsibilities. Just imagine the contribution to peace and stability in the Middle East that will be made by a democratic Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Freedom and Democracy

Three weeks ago in London, President Bush asserted “America has put our power at the service of principle. The advance of freedom is the calling of our time.” People must be free from fear and persecution, and they must be free to choose their leaders as well as the type of system in which those leaders govern, in other words, democracy.

That is what the integration of Europe is all about, as countries that used to be part of the Soviet empire throw off its authoritarian shackles and make common cause with the other free nations of Western Europe.  Enlargement of the European Union, which the United States has supported strongly for many decades, broadens and consolidates the zone of freedom, peace and prosperity in Europe and strengthens Europe’s role as global partner of the United States in advancing international peace.

Why is that?  It is widely acknowledged that democracies do not go to war with one another.  In fact, history has shown that the most stable, tolerant and prosperous countries are those that respect the principles of human rights, the rule of law, and individual liberties. Our partnership with the European Union demonstrates that democracies are stronger partners in promoting peace, fighting terrorism and international crime, strengthening markets, combating corruption and promoting transparency in businesses and financial institutions.

Of course, there is not just one face of democracy.  A nation’s unique history and culture should be represented by its governing institutions. But while democracies can come in many shapes and sizes, their essence is the same. They must reflect the decisions, and be accountable to the will, of the majority, while protecting the rights of the minority.   If we want to build a more secure and economically prosperous world, we must support emerging democracies.

Nowhere is the spread of freedom more important than in the region to the east of Cyprus – the Middle East – where we all have a vital stake in stopping the cycle of dictatorship and radicalism that inflicts misery on many in the region and projects violence around the globe.  A recent UN report concluded that the wave of democracy reshaping governance in much of the world has barely touched Arab states, that a “freedom deficit” was undermining human development in that part of the world.   The region’s 22 countries, for example, have a combined population of 300 million, but a combined GDP less than that of Spain.  In the globalized, high tech world in which we live, knowledge is key to boosting productivity and helping Arab regions spread the values of freedom and democracy. 

With that in mind, the United States launched a year ago the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a Presidential initiative to support economic, political, and educational reform efforts in the Middle East and to champion opportunity for all people of the region, especially women and youth. The initiative aims to link Arab, U.S., and global private sector businesses, non-governmental organizations, civil society elements, and governments together to develop innovative policies and programs.  To date, the Administration has committed $129 million to this initiative, which includes projects such as a Regional Judicial Forum and Regional Campaign Schools and stay-in-school incentive programs.  To counter destructive  hopelessness in the region, we must all work with those who share our commitment to freedom and  help build a Middle East where hope triumphs over fear and tolerance over terror.

Prosperity and Development

The other half of the equation for encouraging security and freedom is our commitment to advancing prosperity and development around the world. Our recipe for economic success includes promoting free trade and market expansion, and spurring growth, investment and development. It also addresses emergency humanitarian crises in the short term, while in the long run linking development assistance to sound policies.

The United States believes in promoting free trade globally, regionally and bilaterally.  Economics is not a zero-sum gain. In a world that is tied together by free trade, each of us benefits when other nations prosper. In the World Trade Organization, we have worked hard with our European partners and others to launch a new global trade round. This initiative is known as the Doha Development Agenda, and we hope it is fully implemented by its deadline in 2005. If Doha succeeds, it will generate $90 billion to $190 billion a year in higher incomes for developing nations.  Now that Cyprus is entering the EU, we hope it will join more actively in promoting this global view-- supporting trade policies that will benefit not just yourselves, not just Europe, but the developing world as well.

Liberalized trade is just one piece of the puzzle. Not only does the United States buy hundreds of billions of dollars in goods produced by developing countries, it also invests heavily in those countries. Roughly three out of every eight dollars in foreign direct investment in Africa, for example, comes from the United States. Encouraging market reforms is also important. The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development carry out a host of programs around the world that target corruption and weak financial institutional practices. This is particularly important in an age when terrorists exploit such weaknesses for their own gains.

Similarly, President Bush has launched innovative ways to promote development, such as the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). This initiative will raise current levels of U.S. development assistance by 50% over the next three years, thus providing an additional $5 billion by fiscal year 2006. Why is the project cutting edge? Because the MCA links aid to a set of broad and concrete criteria for progress. The MCA recognizes that economic development assistance can be successful only if it is tied to sound policies in developing countries. In sound policy environments, every dollar of aid attracts two dollars of private capital. Thus, the MCA will be distributed to developing countries that demonstrate a strong commitment toward: good governance, the health and education of their people, and sound economic policies that foster enterprise and entrepreneurship.  We made this commitment to such countries because open markets, sustainable budget policies and strong support for individual businesses result in creativity that translates into lasting growth and prosperity. 

In terms of emergency aid, America is the world’s largest contributor to humanitarian relief, both publicly and privately. The U.S. Agency for International Development has a budget of $1.2 billion for food assistance this year, for example, up from $850 million in 2002.  We plan on remaining the largest donor to the World Food Program, having contributed $929 million in 2002 alone.

The fight against HIV/AIDS is particularly important to President Bush. Last January, he announced a five-year $15 billion initiative to turn the tide against the HIV/AIDS pandemic. This effort is bolstered by nations, non-governmental organizations and local community groups around the world who are back the Global Fund to Fight AIDS.

The Toolbox

I hope this broad-brush sketch has widened your perspective of American policy and challenged some of the stereotypes of our efforts I encounter from time to time.  Now let me make a few comments about means or methods.

Here’s my first point: the United States does not have a one-size-fits-all approach to foreign policy.  As should be clear from my examples, we employ a toolbox of approaches, not a single cookie cutter, for dealing with international challenges.  One should not misinterpret Iraq as a template for U.S. policy toward all countries.  In Iraq, we did use force with our coalition partners -- as a last resort, against a country with a clear record of aggression, whose support for weapons of mass destruction and terrorism threatened the international community and only after a large degree of international consensus developed about what Iraq needed to do to remove that threat.  In North Korea, by contrast, we are using diplomacy.  For many months now, we have been working closely with China, Russia, Japan and South Korea to achieve an agreement that will rid the Korean Peninsula permanently of nuclear weapons.  Across the globe, we employ a mix of diplomacy, development and democracy assistance, sanctions, incentives and trade policy.

A second major theme in American foreign policy involves partnership and international organizations.  Let me quote what President Bush said recently in London:  “Like 11 Presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to lead… In this century, as in the last, nations can accomplish more together than apart…Our first choice, and our constant practice, is to work with other responsible governments. We understand, as well, that the success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure.”

So, partnership is essential in the global war on terrorism, in addressing the threat of proliferation, in fighting disease and poverty and in eliminating trading barriers.  There is little that the United States can do in the world that can’t be done better with the active participation of others -- governments, international organizations such as the UN, NATO, the EU or the IAEA.  Look at recent developments in Afghanistan, where NATO is at work; the Balkans, where both NATO and the EU are at work; or the Middle East Peace Process, where the U.S., the EU, UN, and Russia are collaborating.

The importance of partnership also explains a major initiative President Bush announced last week to modernize our global defense posture, which has received little coverage here in Cyprus.  The President launched a review to enable our military forces to better carry out their worldwide commitment.  But what was the first step in this review?  The dispatch of senior teams of U.S. officials to consult with our allies and partners before any adjustments in our overseas military posture are made.

Now, the United States does not expect all nations to agree with us or with each other all the time, of course. Differences of opinion and in priorities are inevitable. Just as we will not compromise our core values, we do not expect another country to compromise its principles, its values and goals.  In some instances, a nation must be prepared to chart its own course. However, as the President made clear, the United States seeks to make common cause with other nations and work through international organizations wherever possible.

Cyprus Problem

Let me conclude with a few comments about the Cyprus issue.  How does U.S. internationalism relate to Cyprus? What sorts of tools do we use to further our goals for the island’s future?

As Ambassador Tom Weston’s recent visit underscores, the United States has dedicated significant time, resources and energy to the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem. Our efforts are not unilateral, but rather focused on supporting the UN Secretary General’s Good Offices Mission.  They take the form of diplomacy as well as economic assistance – some $300 million over the past two decades.  We believe that the Annan Plan represents the most comprehensive, good-faith effort to date by the UN to bridge differences between the two sides, and to ensure that their fundamental interests are respected. 

Right now, all eyes are on the upcoming vote in the north on December 14.  Provided the process is fully democratic, free and fair – and on that score we have concerns that we have raised both with Turkey and Turkish Cypriot authorities -- Turkish Cypriots will have an opportunity to show support for the kind of Cyprus settlement they seek.  The outcome could provide a significant, helpful impetus for settlement efforts.

Regardless of how the elections turn out, however, there are certain things that remain clear for both sides: 

First, on December 15 regardless of the vote, the Cyprus problem will remain, and the only way to resolve it is through negotiation and mutual agreement.  If one thing is clear from the many decades of UN brokered efforts, neither party can compel the other to accept a solution contrary to its perceived fundamental interests.  Both parties will no doubt press for their essential interests if talks resume, but they must also be prepared to make accommodations – including difficult decisions and bitter compromises – to resolve this longstanding problem.  Far from imposing a settlement from the outside, the role of the international community – the United States, Europe, UNSC Members and others -- should be – and in the case of the United States, let me assert, will be -- to provide diplomatic support and financial assistance to facilitate implementation of a settlement, especially for people who will relocate.

Second, the longer the problem remains, the harder it gets to solve.  The absence of a solution is not cost free for either side. Restrictions certainly retard development in the north, but uncertainty about the future casts a shadow over the entire island, inhibiting Cypriots from achieving their full potential.  The lack of certainty engenders a sense of insecurity, which only a settlement can dispel definitively.  That lack of certainty does not benefit businesses, industry or the tourist sector on the island.  President Papadopoulos, moreover, has discussed some of the additional problems Cyprus will face should it enter the EU divided.  Clearly, Cyprus will not be able to take full advantage of its membership in the European Union if the status quo continues.

Third, the only way forward to achieve an agreement by Cyprus’s May 1 accession to the European Union is to negotiate the Annan Plan. As my colleague Ambassador Weston has made clear, the plan can be changed through mutual agreement, although given the timeframe, it is not realistic to expect one can reopen all issues.

Fourth, the choice Cypriots face isn’t between the Annan Plan and a hypothetical  “better plan” -- one that hasn’t been drafted yet. The choice is between negotiating the Annan Plan and no solution for the foreseeable future.  While the buffer zone may now be crossed, it still divides Cypriots from each other, and limits the opportunities that would otherwise exist if a solution were achieved.

So, all efforts on both sides should focus on getting talks restarted within the framework of the Secretary General’s Good Offices Mission.  That means the requirements laid down in his April 1 report – backed unanimously by the Security Council Resolution 1475 – for the necessary expression of political will by the two sides, together with Greece and Turkey, should be met.   Leaders on both sides must ask themselves whether they want to pass on to the next generation the burden of problems arising from the absence of a sustainable Cyprus settlement.

Conclusion

I hope my remarks have given you some food for thought about American foreign policy and will prompt some questions as well. 

Our goals worldwide – security and peace, freedom and prosperity – also inform our efforts to facilitate a solution of the Cyprus problem.  At the dawn of a new century and millennium, with its trend toward greater integration and resolution of ethnic based conflicts, a settlement is well overdue.  What a tremendous accomplishment for all if Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots could join the EU together in just sixth months!  The world would applaud and support the tough compromises required to achieve such a success. Thank you.